Pike phalanxes - why ?

[JaM]

Cavalry battle is just something that personally surprised me, anyway its just a offtopic. What i find interesting is the mention of Close combat between Phalanx and Legions at Heraclea - expecially the part where Phalangities were frustrated by ability to withdraw and replace maniples during the battle.. Hastati at that time were just lightly armored so its not surprise they would get high casualtes, leves skirmishers didnt even had shields and were not very good at skirmishing either. Anyway yes, Elite Phalangitai were unable to break Roman position, due to flexibility of Roman Line and constant replacement of maniples...

Oh, and another interesting fact, Pyrrhus returned to Epiros with just 8000 men, so he practically lost 2/3 of his army he originally had when he landed in Italy.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

To be really more realistic the game should allow to breack formations into multiple. Numbers....


Ifyou get two armies on field with the same numbers , one of phalanxes the other of maniples...to be realistic it should feature the phalanxes in fewer unit number of more men , the maniples in more u it numbers of less men ... That wayromans would. Have more units to manouver , while greeks less ...the game so should be balanced on favoring the manpower rather than the unit number throught the units costs ....so if a unit costs. Less , shouldnt mean that is crap but that could. Have less men... So. You could afford more maniples rather thanmany phalanxes...

[vietanh797]

There is something I think we mistaken here.
The hypaspist in SE is the only unit after Alexander era still equip as a assault troop(and they disappear before Roman came most likely because the empire unable to maintain such unit)
Those in Greek just a mix between light hoplite and peltast, they aren't similar to the one who serve under Philips and Alexander.

[JaM]

And what exactly is the difference between Hipaspist and Thorakitai/THourophoroi?? The only i see is the armor (which in case of Thorakitai would be comparable if using Mail) and training... Macedonian Hipaspist were just elite Hoplites used aggressively instead of forming hoplite Phalanx..

[vietanh797]

Thureophoroi seem mainly used as skirmisher but their decent equip allow them to stand their own ground if they face fast infantry unit that often used to attack skirmisher(e.g: light hoplite)
Thorakitai have a good armor and equip with the spear to counter cavalry, sword for close combat and heavy javelins to attack, They much similar to Late Roman Legion which equip spear to be able to face barbarian cavalry more effective., since they have good armor and weapon to face many kind of enemies they fit for the role of flank guard troops. Some time they can be used as assault troops(similar to how Roman use Legion)
Hypaspist divide in 4 groups
-The first is the original in Macedon they are hoplite back in Philips' days. Some said they carry javelins under Alexander's army. Vanguard troops/ assault troops. They gone during the Persia Campaign.
-The second is developed from the first also by Macedon but they change their fighting style to phalangites and also change their name to Argaspirades, quite famous under Eumenes' command. They fight on the right of main battle line like any phalangites, not really in right flank. This unit disappeared not long after they betray Eumenes
-The third is Greek version after Diadochi war. They are a mix of skirmishers and light hoplite. Nothing special here, they still work like the old light hoplite(main role: chase enemies skirmisher) but with the peltast mix in now, it seem they more effective when facing cavalry.
-The last is SE version under Antiochus , not sure about how they fought or equip since they disappear too fast possibly because of high maintenance cost which the SE unable to supply. Record shown that they also serve as Vanguard troops

[JaM]

Found some citations regarding Legion maneuverability:

[De Bello Galico 7.62] In one of Labienus' fights the tribunes of the 7th legion which was on the right were told about events on the left; the tribunes turned the legion around to attack the enemy rear [cum septimae legionis tribunis esset nuntiatum quae in sinistro cornu gererentur, post tergum hostium legionem ostenderunt signaque intulerunt].

The tribunes received information during the battle and were able to ... ostendere is a difficult verb. Literally it means to show or display, to present. In this case it seems to mean that the legion somehow moved to present itself to the back of the enemy force. They key element here is that, again, a legion was able to maneuver as a cohesive body during battle and at the command of its tribunes.


De Bello Galico [DBG 2.23 ff] Caesar describes an surprise attack on the legions while they were setting up camp. He notes that the 9th and 10th legions, on the left, drove the enemy back over a creek. On the right was the 12th legion and not far from it, the 7th [ et non magno ab ea intervallo VII]. As the battle progressed things initially went poorly for the Romans. The 9th and 10th pursued too far leaving the center open. The 12th got itself bunched up and was unable to fight effectively. All of the centurions of the 4th cohort had been killed [quartae cohortis omnibus centurionibus occisis]. In a famous passage he ordered that the standards be moved so that the battle line could be opened up more [cohortatus milites signa inferre et manipulos laxare iussit, quo facilius gladiis uti possent]. At one point Caesar orders the 7th and 12th legions to come together [paulatim sese legiones coniungerent]. And Labienus, seeing the difficulty on the right, sent the 10th legion over to help out [X .legionem subsidio nostris misit].

In this battle, at least, there was a wide gap in the center between the two pairs of legions. The 12th legion was able to re-organize itself during battle by moving the standards which the men were able to follow. If all of the centurions in the 4th cohort were killed then all of those six centuries were in action (possibly an argument in favor of the centuries being side by side). The 7th legion was near the 12th, literally "not much of a interval from it." Later they were ordered to coniungere, to join together; apparently they were separated by a significant distance. Labienus is able to completely re-direct the 10th legion right during battle.


http://www.garyb.0catch.com/fighting2/fighting2.html

[alex man142]

The phalanx was never meant to be an offensive force. It was meant to fix the enemy in place while the commander flanked the enemy with cavalry. The reason the Romans beat the Seleucids was because the Diadochi failed to realize the weaknesses of the phalanx, which the Romans exploited.

A phalanx in the hands of a commander who realizes what the phalanx was meant for is almost unbeatable. I do think that Alexander would have wiped the Romans. The Legion was good in that it was great no matter how bad the commander was. The phalanx was almost useless in the hands of a bad commander.

[JaM]

Alexander lived in times, Roman Legion was not what it became later, so it is not entirely fair to say he would beat them. And its not fair to Alexander to compare with late Legions, because those were more modern. its like comparing 17.century army with Napoleons army...

[Anna_Gein]

The phalanx was never meant to be an offensive force. It was meant to fix the enemy in place while the commander flanked the enemy with cavalry. The reason the Romans beat the Seleucids was because the Diadochi failed to realize the weaknesses of the phalanx, which the Romans exploited.

A phalanx in the hands of a commander who realizes what the phalanx was meant for is almost unbeatable. I do think that Alexander would have wiped the Romans. The Legion was good in that it was great no matter how bad the commander was. The phalanx was almost useless in the hands of a bad commander.

Again what makes you believe the phalanx could only "fix" the enemy and serve a defensive role ? Because Alexander was a commander skilled enough to flank his enemy ? That is nonsense. If the phalanx had to take the initiative to smash its enemy it was well able to do so.

[oOIYvYIOo]

Phalanx is a formation for any spear unit ,google .

alex man142 have you ever thought what you wrote "The phalanx was never meant to be an offensive force."
Tell me then how the hellenistic civilizations fought betwen them ? Just standing and watching each other and the victorious would be the one that had more patient ?
How Alexander reach where he reached ?
Phalanx is a formation ,used by everyone even the Romans with their units.
The "greek" civilizations prefer to use hoplites,the makedonians sarissas,the romans "legionaries" but all were on phalanx formation (closed formation) .
Of course using a spear in phalanx formation would mean that it would work alot better than a swordsman using phalanx .
Of course it means it would remove the dinamic for a spear army that would use the phalanx formation.

The Romans won as they won against any other civilization .
But before they achieved the final victory, they lost vs Macedonians,Seleucids and many other phalanx armies or peoples.
The Romans as they had a vast experience to fight against diferent nations, and due the greeks have never reached what the italians did ,unit under one banner.
Corruption,betrayals,assassinations was 1 main and fuclral aspect that the Romans knew how to use against their enemies ,specially when they destroyed Carthage ,they became the most rich civilization in all the known world.Why you think they went after the Carthage before going to anyone else ?
In the end ,the money , who ever have more money as usual not due they were high superior ...
Not because anyone were way superior than anyone ,not because phalanx were a old fashion war formation.
Of course for the Romans were the most advanced people in the world ,why, the money to invest and they were a people united under 1 "flag" more than any other civilization.

Thats what i think ,we all have diferent opinions .

[JaM]

Yes, it would if enemy is directly in front of them... but doing any maneuvers with entire line would be impossible - Look at maneuverability of Line formation during Napoleonic times - much smaller battalions formed in 3 rank line would get completely disordered if ordered to do any turning while keeping line formation. It was even considered inappropriate to march into contact with enemy in line formation, because such unit would get disordered after few minutes of walking. And yet, you think much deeper and much longer formation would be able to perform battlefield maneuvers without problems??? NO, it wont. Any attempt to perform some change of course with such huge line would end up with completely disordered line with lots of gaps - ideal for legionaries to exploit... because Phalanx was only strong if it kept its cohesion...

Only way how to do it, would be to divide Phalanx into smaller units which would maneuver independently, but again, that would just give more advantages to Roman maniplex/cohorts...

[vietanh797]

Yes, it would if enemy is directly in front of them... but doing any maneuvers with entire line would be impossible - Look at maneuverability of Line formation during Napoleonic times - much smaller battalions formed in 3 rank line would get completely disordered if ordered to do any turning while keeping line formation. It was even considered inappropriate to march into contact with enemy in line formation, because such unit would get disordered after few minutes of walking. And yet, you think much deeper and much longer formation would be able to perform battlefield maneuvers without problems??? NO, it wont. Any attempt to perform some change of course with such huge line would end up with completely disordered line with lots of gaps - ideal for legionaries to exploit... because Phalanx was only strong if it kept its cohesion...

Only way how to do it, would be to divide Phalanx into smaller units which would maneuver independently, but again, that would just give more advantages to Roman maniplex/cohorts...

err do you know line formation are the basics of military?

[JaM]

err do you know line formation are the basics of military?

so? whats your point? just because line formation is so common does it make it easier to maneuver with? NO it doesnt. LINE formation is the hardest formation you could have to do any sort of maneuvers. And bigger it is, harder it gets. but you can easily try it... just ask your few friends to stand in line and then tell them to turn 90degrees... and you will see what would happen... its not like I'm making those things up. its well known and perfectly documented fact, that you can find mentioned everywhere...


for example:

The line had been standard during the XVIII Century but lost popularity after the French triumphs with columns during the Revolutionary Wars. The difficulty with advancing lines was their sensitivity to terrain and order. The irregularities of the terrain caused the ranks to become ragged, the battalion bowed in the middle and sometimes broke completely in half.
A line of two battalions on a battlefield would be halting to dress more frequently than one battalion. The long line made the troop more difficult to manoeuvre and to turn. For these reasons, commanders used lines only for short distances and over open terrain with no serious obstacles.

It was easier to attack with several battalion columns than with several battalion lines. General Antoine Henri Jomini wrote, "I have also seen attempts made to march deployed battalions in checkerwise order. They succeeded well; whilst marches of the same battalions in continous lines did not. The French, particularly, have never been able to march steadily in deployed lines... It maybe employed in the first stages of the movement forward, to make it more easy, and the rear battalions would then come into line with the leading ones before reaching the enemy ... for we must not forget that in the checkered order there are not two lines, but a single one, which is broken, to avoid the wavering and disorder observed in the marches of continous lines...
Suppose the attempt made to bring up 20 or 30 battalions in line, while firing either by file or by company, to the assault of a well defended position; it is not very probable they would ever reach the desired point, or if they did, it would be in about as good order as a flock of sheep."

Chlapowski writes, "He [General Dabrowski] took some battalions [of Polish infantry] out into the countryside and ordered them to perform certain manoeuvers. The movements in column went well, but battalions moving at the double in line with bayonets fixed were still very uneven and fell into bad disorder. The soldiers were not experienced enough yet to follow their marker with their eyes only, but instead turned their heads to the side as well. Once a few had turned their heads, their bodies could no longer walk in a straight line, steps became undeven and the whole line broke up as files either collided or diverged." (Chlapowski/Simmons - p 15)

The Prussian infantry of 1813-15 had similar problems. “As we (Prussians) neared the French batteries, Bulow attempted to protect our first wave, which was advancing in battalion masses, against the impact of the cannonballs by forming an ordinary line. This failed and the fast reorganization into battalion masses was the only means of preventing disorder. In addition, it proved that in the present employment of artillery and by the utilization of any terrain, an advance in combat with long, thin lines is impossible and should be stricken from the regulations.” (- General Boyen, after the battle of Gross-Beeren 1813)

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in...infantry_lines



And if this was so big problem in 18-19.century with just 2-3 rank deep formations for Line Infantry Battalions that were usually just about 400-600 men big, Imagine how it would look like with bigger formations...

[Anna_Gein]

Yes, it would if enemy is directly in front of them... but doing any maneuvers with entire line would be impossible - Look at maneuverability of Line formation during Napoleonic times - much smaller battalions formed in 3 rank line would get completely disordered if ordered to do any turning while keeping line formation. It was even considered inappropriate to march into contact with enemy in line formation, because such unit would get disordered after few minutes of walking. And yet, you think much deeper and much longer formation would be able to perform battlefield maneuvers without problems??? NO, it wont. Any attempt to perform some change of course with such huge line would end up with completely disordered line with lots of gaps - ideal for legionaries to exploit... because Phalanx was only strong if it kept its cohesion...

Only way how to do it, would be to divide Phalanx into smaller units which would maneuver independently, but again, that would just give more advantages to Roman maniplex/cohorts...

First could you stop with the incessant phalanx v.s. legion ranting. The discussion was interesting and I enjoyed it but it is becoming tiresome now.

I don't know what exactly are you trying to say. That phalanx is less manoeuvrable than swordsmen formation ? I never claimed otherwise. Despite the difficulty you are pointing out the phalanx was able to move, engage its enemy and defeat them. Maybe it was not capable to reposition itself as quickly as other infantry formation but it was certainly able to move slightly in order to engage its enemy by front. As it would generally happen in battles. Finally yes it is not the adequate infantry formation to envelop the enemy flank but that is the task of other infantry types.

By the way could not Taxis act in relatively distinctive formation rather than one single line without any space between them ? (This one is not a rhetorical question).

[torongill]

Anna, in theory yes. I'm not sure about the practical application of a second line with phalangites to be honest. The first line is already thick enough for the commander to fear a breakthrough. You don't really achieve anything by leaving half of your men behind the battle scratching their asses.

You gain much more by deploying in a single line, bringing more sarissas to bear and also by allowing the flank guards, the more flexible men who are used to maneuvering, to either stack deeper or deploy in more than one line so that they could follow a cavalry breakthrough, spread out to envelope the enemy or simply fight longer.

The Romans deployed in multiple lines because they practiced line exchange, and besides, the total depth of their triple line wouldn't be more than 20 men and that's for the Marian/Caesarian/Imperial legion. The Polybian legion's total depth was probably along the lines of 15-19, depending on the strength of the legion.

[Anna_Gein]

Anna, in theory yes. I'm not sure about the practical application of a second line with phalangites to be honest. The first line is already thick enough for the commander to fear a breakthrough. You don't really achieve anything by leaving half of your men behind the battle scratching their asses.

I don't mean in multiple line but with space between each formation of pikemen. Nothing too facing it could be enough room for 2 men to stand.
So you don't have one single line 16 ranks deep trying to advance but multiple battalion who advance and together form the battle line.

@ JaM : there would surely be some difference caused by movement and combat. However I don't very limited gap would necessary lead the whole battle-line to collapse. As phalanx suffered casualties even when the formation is hold and the pike-wall as unassailable I suppose casualties could more easily from this gap. That lead us to the question to what extend did Macedonians used skirmishers and light infantry in coordination to pikemen. Even limited numbers of soldiers could hold such small gap.

[torongill]

I don't mean in multiple line but with space between each formation of pikemen. Nothing too facing it could be enough room for 2 men to stand.
So you don't have one single line 16 ranks deep trying to advance but multiple battalion who advance and together form the battle line.

@ JaM : there would surely be some difference caused by movement and combat. However I don't very limited gap would necessary lead the whole battle-line to collapse. As phalanx suffered casualties even when the formation is hold and the pike-wall as unassailable I suppose casualties could more easily from this gap. That lead us to the question to what extend did Macedonians used skirmishers and light infantry in coordination to pikemen. Even limited numbers of soldiers could hold such small gap.

Oh, absolutely. You see, a gap is the empty space between two units that cannot be defended effectively by either of those two units. With their long pikes, and the fact that the whole right file of the sintagma can level their sarissas horisontally, instead of holding them vertically, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for the phalanx to operate with small empty spaces between the individual units. Besides, in those empty spaces will be the commanders of the unit, supposedly the best fighters and the best armored. Light infantry like skirmishers will also be in that space, sealing the seam between the two adjacent Syntagmas.

[Kraxis]

Oh, absolutely. You see, a gap is the empty space between two units that cannot be defended effectively by either of those two units. With their long pikes, and the fact that the whole right file of the sintagma can level their sarissas horisontally, instead of holding them vertically, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for the phalanx to operate with small empty spaces between the individual units. Besides, in those empty spaces will be the commanders of the unit, supposedly the best fighters and the best armored. Light infantry like skirmishers will also be in that space, sealing the seam between the two adjacent Syntagmas.

One also have to assume skirmishers had some way of getting through the pikeline once the main forces began to close. They obviously didn't move all the way around them. So some form of channelling had to be possible, one that didn't impair the phalanx once melee was joined.

[JaM]

torongill: yes, there is no point in deploying Phalangitai in two lines behind each other. Instead, it would be better to just increase files and ranks instead, which would strengthen the formation more than having undeployable reserve in the back.

Also, what i wanted to tell with my example about line formation, is that phalangitai were also organized into smaller units, which were more closer to column formation than line. Thing is, you needed perfectly trained men to keep the pace same across the all units in phalanx line otherwise some subunits would be faster, some slower, which would create gaps, which legionaries could exploit easily thanks to their smaller more compact unit structure. So, with phalangitai that were not trained to highest level, it would be more likely their formation would get broken just by simple advance forward..

[torongill]

You can't compare the Napoleonic line formation with the ancient line formation. The Napoleonic battalion deployed in line was two- or three-deep and 200-400 across. The Ancient Roman maniple deployed in line was 6- or 8-deep and 20 across. The Hellenistic phalanx was deployed 16-deep as a rule, from a syntagma of 256 men, meaning it was a 16x16 square. That's much easier to maintain.
Don't forget as well that Napoleonic line formation required the men to be practically shoulder to shoulder, the second rank breathing in the necks of the fellows in the first rank. You can't maintain such a formation in maneuver across an open field full of potholes unless its advance is very slow and the soldiers very well trained. In contrast, the Hellenistic phalanx normal formation required the men to occupy a frontage of around one meter, same as the Romans. The ranks were similarly separated, which allows steady advance across normal terrain, accounting for obstacles in the field.